220724
Today
- Wrote Irregular Ideas
- Walked in the woods
Tomorrow
- Designing an online course
- Team retro
- Priorities
Today
Tomorrow
If you were born before the year 2000 you might remember TV only showing programmes on a schedule, maybe you dialled numbers into a phone to make a call, and only those few people you spoke face-to-face to ever heard your opinions. If you were born some time after 2000, you were born into a world where digital technology changed everything.
Some people recognised this early on. Marc Prensky wrote about how the education system wasn’t going to be able to meet the needs of the young people, and he coined the terms ‘digital natives’ and ‘digital immigrants’ to explain why. He used these in describing the digital world as a country where those born into it thought, felt and acted in fundamentally different ways to those who came from the ‘old world’ of analogue thinking. To Prensky, and others such as Dr. Bruce Perry of Baylor College of Medicine, young people having grown up with digital technology all around them, and huge amounts of information coming at them all the time, thought, communicated, socialised, created and learned in fundamentally different ways. This was a discontinuous change in thinking patterns, they said, unlike anything that had gone before.
Digital natives live surrounded by digital technologies. Computers and the Internet are natural parts of their lives, they don’t need to familiarise themselves with the technology by comparing it to something else, it just makes sense to them. They take in information in random and disconnected ways and thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. And they see their place in networks and do not find the complexity and continuous flow of digital information to be problematic. Things changing at an ever faster pace is just normal for digital natives.
What feels ordinary to digital natives is novelty to digital immigrants.
To digital immigrants, information feels best received in a slow, step-by-step, linear fashion. They tend to think of the physical and digital as separate worlds. And they always have one foot in the past with a sense of nostalgia about reading printed books or being disconnected from the Internet.
Prensky was writing about education, so it’s easy to see why he would think of the difference between digital native and digital immigrants as being about age, and split between student and teacher. If, instead, we think about how ubiquitous digital technology affects people in all kinds of different situations and scenarios then age doesn’t look like a factor. Perhaps being a digital native is less about when someone is born and more about what experience they have with technology.
In fact, according to an article in the British Journal of Education Technology, there is very little evidence that young people are radically different in the ways they use and process information. And there many researchers who have critiqued the notion that age or generation is best way to understand the difference between those who tech-savvy and those that aren’t. Don Tapscott, who specialises in the role of technology in business and society, says that a “digital native is defined by exposure to, or experience with, technology”. People become digital natives by using more technology, in more ways, more of the time.
It’s not too late for those of us born before the twenty-first century to join the digital revolution. Being a digital immigrant is not fixed. Developing the mindset of a digital native is a matter of experience. The more you use digital technology, and the more things you use it for, the more you understand the concepts and applications of digital technology as an integrated part of life.
Take identity, for example. To digital natives, identity is more fluid than for digital immigrants. When digital immigrants project their ‘real’ selves into cyberspace, they want the things they put online to be associated with their real name, to represent some essential essence of who they really are, to have authenticity and status. To a digital native, interacting with the world (physical and virtual, because they aren’t separate) through a username, an online account can be dropped, changed, or a new one made in seconds. Their ‘identity’ is no more stable than an email address.
Or take ownership as a another example. Dr. Alec Couros, professor of educational technology & media, said, “the speed and ubiquity of social media complicate our ability to control our digital footprint, directly impacting our identities”. That’s a digital immigrant’s way of saying that once you put something online, you don’t own it, you don’t control it. Everything you put online can be easily copied, instantly shared, infinitely edited and is viewable by millions of people.
And privacy too, that’s another example. Couros also talks about how our online lives are “public by default, private by effort”. He means that, not only are social media platforms and digital technologies usually designed to share people’s data, even if they aren’t aware or might not want to, but that for digital natives the first instinct is to share and that keeping things private requires stopping and thinking.
So, when we say that digital technology affects everything in our lives, we mean everything. In the twenty-first century, everything we think, feel, say, do, buy, write, read, watch, listen to, is affected by digital technology.
Bill Gates wrote that new digital technology amplifies human potential. It’s effect could be as great as electricity. Or greater. The sooner we all become digital natives, the more we adopt a digital mindset and feel at home in a hyper-connected, on demand, real time networked, digital world, the more of that potential we can realise.
But even if we don’t, a hundred years from now the distinction between digital native or immigrant will be gone. No one will remember a time without the Internet.
Today
Tomorrow
Today
Tomorrow
Photo of the week:
This week I did:
Some members of the digital and innovation team have been working on defining how our products, service, systems and projects fit together. It’s fascinating work and has made me think about the question from lots of different angles. Once of those is about how, as a social change charity, we use products and services as tools for change. How do we design services in ways that help people help themselves rather than making them dependent on the service? How do we create products that have a goal of making themselves no longer needed because the user problem has been solved?
This week’s irregular idea took Thoreau’s essay, ‘On the duty of civil disobedience’ and tried to apply some modern systems thinking to help us be sceptical of all the systems that affect us and how although we might not be able to do much to affect the systems we are in, we should try to be part of creating a vision for future systems.
I thought about, chatted about and wrote about the usefulness of cohesion in strategy and strategic thinking. It often seems like the missing element. Lots of random ideas and efforts isn’t a strategy. What makes them into a strategy is that they are cohesive.
I reached 555 stiles for stiles.style and 300 places on my trip around the coast of England, Wales and Scotland.
I read:
I found Mike Hudson’s brilliant book on the art of managing third sector organisations in a little bookshop, and although I’ve only read a little it seems really straight-up. I’m looking forward to reading more.
This post describes the qualities which Catherine How use to define the digital mindset. There are some excellent points, like “Digital is not a spectator sport and it favours people who can both think and do.”, “Networked power is more organisationally porous, purpose driven and is less controllable than hierarchical power.” and “being open with ideas is both a cultural quality of the social web but also a core capability for collaborative working”. Absolutely brilliant stuff.
This article is interesting because so many products try to be marketplaces without really understanding what it means. Take Betterhelp, for example, a marketplace product for connecting clients and therapists. What kind of therapists would use such a platform? Those that can’t get a full set of clients in real life. What kind of clients would use such a platform? Those who might struggle to access a therapist in real life. So, the platform brings together the worst of the therapists with the most in-need clients. The result is unreliable therapists not turning up to sessions, leaving the platform without any closure for the clients, and generally a really poor therapeutic service that has the potential to do more harm than good. Marketplace products are really difficult to get right.
The UK Digital Strategy is an interesting read (well, if you’re interested in digital and strategy). The structure of the document is an overall goal (UK must strengthen its position as a Global Science and Tech Superpower), the six areas of focus (Digital foundations, Ideas and intellectual property, Digital skills and talent, Financing digital growth, Spreading prosperity and levelling up, Enhancing the UK’s place in the world), and then within each of those the different things that will be done are listed. As a strategy document is clearly shows the breakdown of how the goal should be achieved, but it lacks any measures or feedback loops that would signal whether the strategy is achieving it’s goal.
And I thought about:
I like John Cutler’s definition, product thinking is structured problem-solving and decision-making. I think that product management is applying the scientific method to organisations, it’s about creating a shift away from guessing and opinion to evidence and analysis.
A million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. That’s how different they are. It’s hard to intuit from just the words and shows how difficult we find it to think in scales.
Google Maps business listings should contain accessibility information. Things like whether premises are able to be accessed by wheelchairs, whether they have a hearing loop installed, provide tactile maps, etc., could be added.
Today
Tomorrow
I like Mckeown’s definition of strategy as ‘a coherent response to a significant challenge’. It breaks what is an often vaguely talked about thing into four distinct aspects. There has to be a challenge. That challenge has to be significant. You have to choose to respond to that significant challenge. And your response has to be cohesive.
If there isn’t a significant challenge, you don’t need to be strategic about how you respond. If you aren’t going to respond to the challenge, you don’t need a strategy. If your response isn’t cohesive, you aren’t thinking strategically about it.
If you want to respond cohesively to a significant challenge then you need a strategy. And if you want to think more strategically you can figure out what your significant challenge is and how to create a cohesive response.
Cohesion often seems to be the one that gets missed when deciding how to respond to a significant challenge.
This help us be more strategic about all kinds of challenges that are significant to us. Got lots of things to do (the challenge)? Group them together into themes of similar tasks and you’re already creating a more cohesive response to that challenge than tackling those tasks as separate individual items.
Thinking about ways of connecting, ordering, grouping things starts to add more cohesion, which invariably leads to a better response.